Crl.R.C(MD)No.326 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 13.04.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.R.C(MD)No.326 of 2021

k.Vijayalakshmi

... Petitioner/Complainant

Vs.

1.Sikkandar

... 1^st Respondent/Accused

2.The Inspector of Police,

Thirumayam Police Station,

Pudukottai District.

... 2^nd Respondent/Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining

to the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.2692 of 2020 dated 16.12.2020 on

the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,

Thirumayam and set aside the same.

For Petitioner

: Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan

For R – 1

: Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian

For R – 2

: Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

This revision has been filed to set aside the order passed in

Cr.M.P.No.2692 of 2020, dated 16.12.2020 on the file of the learned

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, thereby

dismissed the complaint lodged for a direction under Section 156(3)

of Cr.P.C.

2.The crux of the allegation is that the first respondent and

his associates have attacked the street dogs with intention to kill

them by sticks and thereby they also killed three dogs. It amounts

to punishable under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

However, the Court below dismissed the petition for the reason that

there are no incriminating conduct against the accused mentioned in

the complaint.

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the

learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned

Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the second

respondent and perused the materials available on record.

4.On a perusal of the media evidence and photographs filed

along with the petition, there are substance for incriminating the

1/2

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Crl.R.C(MD)No.326 of 2021

accused into the offence as alleged by the petitioner herein. The

first respondent is the President of Thirumayam Panchayat Union.

Whereas, the photographs shows that some other person engaged in the

dog catching.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that the first respondent only engaged them to catch the dogs for

killing them, but there is absolutely no evidence to connect the

first respondent that he only engaged the person to catch the dog

and kill them. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or

illegality in the order passed by the Court below. Accordingly, this

Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at

liberty to lodge a fresh complaint against the person, who killed

the dog, with all evidence. If any complaint lodged before the

police personnel, the said police personnel can act without

influence of any observation made by the learned Magistrate.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar (CRL)

// True Copy //

/ /2022

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

ps

Note :In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a

web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but,

ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct

copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant

concerned.

To

1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,

Thirumayam.

2.The Inspector of Police,

Thirumayam Police Station,

Pudukottai District.

Copy to

The Additional Public prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai

Crl.R.C(MD)No.326 of 2021

13.04.2022

KG(CO)

KB(28.04.2022) 2P 4C

2/2

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/